Symposia

[Douglas P Arner is Director of the Asian Institute of International Financial Law, Director of the Duke–HKU Asia–America Institute in Transnational Law and a Professor of Law at the University of Hong Kong. Ross P Buckley is a Professor of International Finance Law at the University of New South Wales and a Fellow of the Asian Institute of International Financial...

The Melbourne Journal of International Law is delighted to be continuing our partnership with Opinio Juris. This week will feature three articles from our most recent issue. The full issue is available for download here. On Monday, Douglas Arner and Ross Buckley will discuss their article ‘Redesigning the Architecture of the Global Financial System’. Examining the history of global financial governance...

I did not want to let the opportunity slip by to offer one comment on Peter Lindseth's fine book - but not from the standpoint of the EU, on which I am not an expert.  Instead, I wanted to comment and commend the discussion of legitimacy in the book, both early in an abstract sense and throughout the text in...

Let me first thank Peter and the other members of Opinio Juris for providing this space for an online discussion of my new book.  Let me also thank Ken, Francesca, and Fernanda for taking the time to offer comments.  I am really looking forward to this exchange. As its title suggests, Power and Legitimacy grapples with what I see...

The following is a guest-post written by Orde Kittrie, a professor at ASU's law school, and Sandy Spector, the deputy director of the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies.  They very much want input from OJ's readership, so please post your thoughts.  Our thanks to Orde and Sandy for contributing the post! Seven years after A.Q. Khan publicly confessed to...

First and most importantly, my sincere thanks to Marko Milanovic and Pierre-Hugues Verdier for taking the time to offer such careful and insightful reactions to my work. I’m extremely fortunate to have them as “virtual” colleagues, and I appreciate the efforts of the YJIL editors and folks at Opinio Juris in creating a forum for this online exchange. As Marko and...

Chimène Keitner has written a powerful article in ‘Rights Beyond Borders.’ She is right that there have been few comparative discussions of the extraterritorial reach of domestic (constitutional) protections of individual rights. Her piece goes a long way towards filling that gap. I am in complete agreement with Chimène that there is much to be learned from such a comparative...

[Chimène I. Keitner, Associate Professor of Law, University of California, Hastings College of the Law; Co-Chair, American Society of International Law Annual Meeting] United States courts are not alone in confronting the question of whether certain domestic rights extend beyond the country’s territorial borders. Yet, the field of comparative constitutional law has largely ignored the question of extraterritoriality. My Article, Rights...

We are pleased to introduce to you today an online symposium discussing Hastings Law Professor Chimène Keitner's article, Rights Beyond Borders, published in the Yale Journal of International Law. Her interlocutors will be Marko Milanovic of the University of Nottingham and Pierre-Hugues Verdier of Virginia Law School. ...

[Eric A. Posner, co-author of Universal Exceptionalism in International Law with Anu Bradford, responds to Robert Ahdieh] I am grateful for Professor Ahdieh’s illuminating comments on my paper with Anu Bradford. Ahdieh offers three interpretations of the charge of U.S. exceptionalism: Degreeism: The United States does not always win, but it wins more often than Europe and China do. Exceptionalism is a matter of degree, but it still exists. I don’t think that the traditional notion of American exceptionalism permits this interpretation, but it is possible that people misuse the word “exceptionalism” in the way that Ahdieh describes. Still, our purpose was to cast doubt on the appropriateness of exceptionalism (and, a fortiori, degreeism) as a moral category. Rather than criticizing states for being exceptionalist, we should focus on the relative normative appeal of the competing exceptionalist visions. An exceptionalist country that always gets its way, or a country that merely gets its way more often than other countries, may be a good country. Such country may also be “better” than the others, which is why we don’t sympathize with North Korea and Myanmar, which rarely get their way, and we retrospectively cheer on the British when they abolished the international slave trade. Everything depends on whether getting its way helps or hurts others—not whether a country is exceptionalist or not or the degree to which it can enforce its exceptionalist view. Presentationism: